Are students outside of the top 20 or so universities more interesting people?

[Anonymous]

I was reading "Excellent Sheep" the other day, and while this post isn't about his book, and while I think his viewpoint has many faults, I've been thinking a lot about whether there's a great deal of truth to the idea that elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important. This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

In the last couple of years, I have gone with my kids to visit a number of top universities, including several top ivy leagues, Duke, and Stanford, and my kids, to my surprise, seem less than enthused. They say the students seem generally boring and rigid. I think they're right and suspect that this has been true for decades and that it is an enduring aspect of the admissions process, a process which students who are genuinely funny, fun, interesting, or creative will generally not have the willingness to endure. The point is not these universities need to change, because it is likely they can't change their admissions process to bring these types of people in without becoming significantly less selective, and it isn't clear that they even want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was reading "Excellent Sheep" the other day, and while this post isn't about his book, and while I think his viewpoint has many faults, I've been thinking a lot about whether there's a great deal of truth to the idea that elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important. This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

In the last couple of years, I have gone with my kids to visit a number of top universities, including several top ivy leagues, Duke, and Stanford, and my kids, to my surprise, seem less than enthused. They say the students seem generally boring and rigid. I think they're right and suspect that this has been true for decades and that it is an enduring aspect of the admissions process, a process which students who are genuinely funny, fun, interesting, or creative will generally not have the willingness to endure. The point is not these universities need to change, because it is likely they can't change their admissions process to bring these types of people in without becoming significantly less selective, and it isn't clear that they even want to.

Maybe the kids you meet on school tours are tired of meeting judgmental asses like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was reading "Excellent Sheep" the other day, and while this post isn't about his book, and while I think his viewpoint has many faults, I've been thinking a lot about whether there's a great deal of truth to the idea that elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important. This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

In the last couple of years, I have gone with my kids to visit a number of top universities, including several top ivy leagues, Duke, and Stanford, and my kids, to my surprise, seem less than enthused. They say the students seem generally boring and rigid. I think they're right and suspect that this has been true for decades and that it is an enduring aspect of the admissions process, a process which students who are genuinely funny, fun, interesting, or creative will generally not have the willingness to endure. The point is not these universities need to change, because it is likely they can't change their admissions process to bring these types of people in without becoming significantly less selective, and it isn't clear that they even want to.

Maybe the kids you meet on school tours are tired of meeting judgmental asses like you.

+ 1,000

[Anonymous]

If your kid didn't get in a T10 or T20 well then, of course.

[Anonymous]

*^into

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was reading "Excellent Sheep" the other day, and while this post isn't about his book, and while I think his viewpoint has many faults, I've been thinking a lot about whether there's a great deal of truth to the idea that elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important. This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

In the last couple of years, I have gone with my kids to visit a number of top universities, including several top ivy leagues, Duke, and Stanford, and my kids, to my surprise, seem less than enthused. They say the students seem generally boring and rigid. I think they're right and suspect that this has been true for decades and that it is an enduring aspect of the admissions process, a process which students who are genuinely funny, fun, interesting, or creative will generally not have the willingness to endure. The point is not these universities need to change, because it is likely they can't change their admissions process to bring these types of people in without becoming significantly less selective, and it isn't clear that they even want to.

The students who run tours have always been boring. I found people at my elite college who interesting, with weird little passions and interests that made spending time with them fun, but I only went to one college.

I do wonder where this is coming from

This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

You describe seeing boring kids on tours at Stanford and Duke, where are you saying you've observed this "excitement and creativity"? What does that actually look like that's different from the elite colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was reading "Excellent Sheep" the other day, and while this post isn't about his book, and while I think his viewpoint has many faults, I've been thinking a lot about whether there's a great deal of truth to the idea that elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important. This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

In the last couple of years, I have gone with my kids to visit a number of top universities, including several top ivy leagues, Duke, and Stanford, and my kids, to my surprise, seem less than enthused. They say the students seem generally boring and rigid. I think they're right and suspect that this has been true for decades and that it is an enduring aspect of the admissions process, a process which students who are genuinely funny, fun, interesting, or creative will generally not have the willingness to endure. The point is not these universities need to change, because it is likely they can't change their admissions process to bring these types of people in without becoming significantly less selective, and it isn't clear that they even want to.

I think to excel in the current education model and get into top tier colleges the process is skewed to the female skill set….

Girls generally have an easier time with: endless monotone, leadership rules, deadlines for submitting written materials for publication, contacting admissions officers and lastly to show demonstrated interest by clicking on links, endlessly, to show demonstrated interest, creating the résumé that may lack soul but has all the pieces.

The criteria is heavily swayed to the female lens..

[Anonymous]

The only person I know from one of these schools is my father, who went to the #1 school in his home country, to study chemistry. Even in retirement, he stays close to corporate culture to map out his days. Mainly he's constantly taking classes and seminars to stay in that rigid environment. He has no creative or unusual pursuits outside of the work-related environment. I'm 37 and don't know of a single hobby he has ever had that wasn't related to getting better at work.

But i think part of it maybe be that people who get into these schools are often from childhood closely trained to follow this one path. So as adults, it's all they've ever known. Like a plant is pruned to a specific growth habit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only person I know from one of these schools is my father, who went to the #1 school in his home country, to study chemistry. Even in retirement, he stays close to corporate culture to map out his days. Mainly he's constantly taking classes and seminars to stay in that rigid environment. He has no creative or unusual pursuits outside of the work-related environment. I'm 37 and don't know of a single hobby he has ever had that wasn't related to getting better at work.

But i think part of it maybe be that people who get into these schools are often from childhood closely trained to follow this one path. So as adults, it's all they've ever known. Like a plant is pruned to a specific growth habit.

Such good insight & analysis

[Anonymous]

I get what you are saying. I saw this play out to an extent in DC’s class. Kids I knew well. The kids who I was always excited to see/host/chat with —they had a spark!—went to top SLACs, UCLA, UVA, Santa Clara, RISD and Lehigh. Amazing list, I know. But not T10. The kids who went T10 included one who had serious social skills issues and one who lied about an accomplishment (was found out by Penn but not MIT, where he enrolled). One school group is just an anecdote, but I get where you are going with this thinking.

My own take away was not to worry so much about the distinctions among schools in the top 75, maybe 100. All of them will have intriguing peers. The question becomes, does my kid have the desire and social skills to find them and enjoy their company? Academically, all of these schools can be excellent or mediocre. The deciding factor is the student and how much they invest in their own education.

The ones I worry for are the ones who perceive a specific acceptance as a golden ticket. It’s a great ticket, for sure. But the golden part? That lies in the people, not the institution.

This perspective was rather liberating. And I saved $12k by not hiring a private counselor who would help my child get their name publiched in a pay to play “research” factory scheme or found a club that duplicates the great work (but not as well) of an established local service charity. Those people need a new shtick. Yawn.

I don’t think all kids at T10s are excellent sheep. But I do suspect many are. It’s a little sad, but not really my problem.

[Anonymous]

I've been thinking this too - and I have an ivy degree and a kid heading to an Ivy. But it seems like to get into one of these schools these days, many - if not most- of the kids would have been extremely overprogrammed and focused in a way that makes you wonder how interesting they are

[Anonymous]

The students who run tours have always been boring. I found people at my elite college who interesting, with weird little passions and interests that made spending time with them fun, but I only went to one college.

I do wonder where this is coming from

This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

You describe seeing boring kids on tours at Stanford and Duke, where are you saying you've observed this "excitement and creativity"? What does that actually look like that's different from the elite colleges?

I think my kids were relaying their general impression of people other than the tour guides. I think the general lack of excitement and creativity is difficult to explain but may just be a function of overscheduling. It's very hard for people to just sit around and hang out when their whole lives they have been overscheduled in very particular ways. Even intellectual curiosity takes a backseat. A friend's daughter spoke of "majoring in extracurricular activities" at Harvard, like "comping" and writing for the Crimson. Her description of it sounded vaguely familiar to working your way up the hierarchy at a top corporation. Not a bad thing, necessarily, but worth noting.

[Anonymous]

I remember a similar discussion a couple of years ago about Stanford:

https://www.palladiummag.com/2022/06/13/stanfords-war-on-social-life/

Stanford’s motto is Die Luft der Freiheit weht—“the winds of freedom blow.” But Stanford has become a case study of how overzealous bureaucrats can crush natural social expression, and how the urge to excise danger can quickly devolve into a campaign to whitewash away anything remotely interesting. In the aftermath, all that is left is the generic: empty walls, names scrubbed off buildings, and kids safely, or not so safely, alone in their rooms.

https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/29/opinion-why-is-stanford-so-unfun/

[Anonymous]

Quite honestly, most of the kids outside of the top schools are about as straight and narrow as they come…literally the definition of corporate sheep. Hence why you see so few famous entrepreneurs or other world beaters of all kinds of ilk from the mass market schools.

[Anonymous]

I found the kids at SLACs to be interesting people on the whole.